[Milsurplus] Interesting web site - P-38 radio

[Francesco Ledda]

I agree, but NDBs don't work well after more than 100nm. At least, this is
my experience as an istrumented pilot.

-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Bob Camp
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:01 AM
To: MILSURPLUS Radios
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Interesting web site - P-38 radio


Hi

I believe that in the arctic they needed something more than a simple
compass for long range operations.  Compasses are not a big help when
the magnet pole is below you ....

No real data I can put my fingers on at the moment though.

Bob


On Dec 2, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Francesco Ledda wrote:

>
> I am sure that it was compass, watch and a little luck....
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Mike Morrow
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 7:50 AM
> To: milsurplus
> Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Interesting web site - P-38 radio
>
>
>> So for example, the P-38s that intercepted  Adm. Yamamoto's
>> plane, were they flying solely by compass and map visuals?
>
> I don't know what that mission used for long-range navigation, but
> it would seem a good candidate for USAAF use of the ZB system with
> the SCR-274-N BC-946-B BCB receiver and the R-1/ARR-1 homing
> adapter.  Some P-38s carried the MN-26 RDF, so maybe that's a
> possibility too.
>
> In general, there doesn't seem there's much evidence for LF/MF RDF
> use by fighter aircraft in WWII, anywhere, other than aural
> directional Adcock beacons that don't require a loop on the
> aircraft.  Those would be useful mainly in ferrying operations,
> since such beacons would be non-existent in combat theaters.  The
> large P-61 fighters carried the SCR-269 or AN/ARN-7 ADF, but P-61s
> were hardly typical fighter aircraft.
>
> The P-38 photo seems to show a BC-450 three-receiver control box
> that has been modified to remove one section, hence the sharp,
> rectangular shape of the top and its open appearance next to the
> BC-451 transmitter control box.  Also notice that this truncated
> BC-450 *and* the BC-451 both appear to be mounted, somehow, on to
> the same three-receiver mounting plate.  It's an odd installation in
> several respects.
>
> I have a single-receiver control box that was modified, fairly
> professionally, from either a three-receiver BC-450 or a two-
> receiver BC-496 control box, so maybe these were sometimes
> "customized" in the field.  My box profile is similar to the one
> shown in the P-38 photo, except it's for just one receiver.
>
> Mike / KK5F
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
> 12/1/2007 12:05 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1163 - Release Date:
> 12/1/2007 12:05 PM
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>

______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1164 - Release Date: 12/2/2007
11:30 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1164 - Release Date: 12/2/2007
11:30 AM